IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

CWP Nos. 2450 & 6042/2025 Decided on: 04.07.2025

1. CWP No.2450/2025 Paramjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

1. CWP No.6042/2025 Chaman Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

……………………………………………………………………………….

Coram o Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate in CWP No. 2450/2025 &

Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate g with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate in CWP No. 6042/2025.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, in both the petitions.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner(s) in both these writ petitions have challenged

the sealed cover procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC hereinafter) while considering their cases for further 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

promotion, whereas, the respondent-State opposes this plea, hence the dispute.

According to learned Advocate General, the ‘challans’/charge-sheets had been filed against the petitioner(s) in the criminal cases registered against them at the time of consideration of their cases for promotion to the next posts, justifying the sealed cover procedure resorted to by the DPC. The sealed cover cannot be opened till the petitioner(s) are exonerated in the criminal cases filed against them. Whereas, as per Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned Advocate and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, for the respective petitioner(s), mere filing of the ‘challans’/charge-sheets against the petitioner(s) in the criminal cases is not sufficient for keeping the recommendations of the DPC in sealed cover. Since charge had not been framed against the petitioners on the date of convening the DPC, the sealed cover procedure could not be resorted to by the DPC. The sealed cover is required to be opened and the recommendations of the DPC need to be given effect to.

The issue involved in both these writ petitions is common, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been taken up together for adjudication.

2. Background facts

2(A) Facts of CWP No. 2450/2025 (Paramjeet Singh)

2(A)(i) Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent- Rural Development Department on 22.12.1999. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 16.06.2011.

2(A)(ii) On 27.04.2013, FIR No. 85/2013 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 409, 465, 468 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra. Petitioner was co-accused in the said FIR. Prosecution sanction was accorded against him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 24.01.2017.

2(A)(iii) Departmental inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner on 27.02.2015. Inquiry officer submitted his report on 01.11.2019 holding charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. As per office instructions dated 02.06.2025 from the Director Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, placed on record by learned Advocate General ‘in the present case, the disciplinary proceedings have culminated in exoneration and no longer survive.’

2(A)(iv) In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) (‘Challan’) was filed by the prosecution before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dehra on 09.05.2017. The criminal case is stated to have been transferred to the Court of learned Additional Session Judge-I Dharamshala on 29.03.2018. As per office instructions dated 04.06.2025 from the Additional Director Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, placed on record by the learned Advocate General ‘criminal proceedings are pending before the competent court but the charges are yet to be framed by the competent court.’

2(A)(v) The respondent-Department convened meeting of the DPC on 18.12.2024 fo